I have no problem with "just cause" if there are avenues for communication and appeal. However...

My app was kicked out of the App Store after 12 months [virtualcricket.mobi]. It was the best app for cricket scores out there - #1 app in almost all cricket-playing countries, great online and offline reviews, featured by Apple several times etc. All of the scores etc for it were obtained from legal sources. However, the developers for the official app of the Indian Premier League (sort-of international cricket competition in March/April every year) complained to Apple that my app infringed on their exclusive rights to provide information on IPL matches and, after a bit of back-and-forth arguments between myself and them, Apple pulled the app.

Now, it's not the fact that they pulled it without "just cause" that upset me, but that they refused to comment and communicate about it in any way. I repeatedly sent emails to various official (and unofficial) contacts at Apple to seek clarification, complain and get the app re-instated, but not a peep from anyone. I even sent an official DMCA Counter Notification and not a single response on that either.

After no word from anyone for a long while, I had to close the service even for existing users who already had the app on their iPhones 'cos I couldn't afford to keep paying for the match data feeds with no revenues. Apple's decision has cost me thousands of dollars, but again, what really upsets me is the total lack of professionalism and common courtesy that they have displayed in this.

You got what you deserved for working with oligarchs. What did you expect?

A little life advice, you know that girl you call every 2-3 days for 2 weeks, but never actually meet? Well, she's just not that into you. Apple'a App store is a pretty similar situation. You should either (a) get a job writing an app for people who have the clout, like say a newspaper, or (b) just changing fucking platforms.

Maemo and MeeGo are kinda a moving target right now, but one might try expanding GnuSTEP to aid porting iPh

Android phones will run unsigned apps, right? I'd assume you could maintain your Android app outside the marketplace, which isn't the same revenue stream, but might pay for the data feed.

In any case, I actually suggested developing a business around porting existing successful iPhone apps to Qt on Symbian, which probably goes way beyond the abilities of out iPhone developer, but nevertheless represents a solid business model with many potential corporate customers.

I am also an iPhone OS developer and have had no problem working with Apple and the App Store so I am curious about the fervor surrounding rejections. I have some simple questions to ask you:

1. How much research did you do into the information licensing that may surround the data you were aggregating?

I ask this because I created a drink recipe and general bartending app and I had to do quite a bit of research into what is and is not copyrighted, trademarked, etc. before we began development. I found out t

It's not about being democratic or not. I can look at it from their point of view - they probably received legal threats from the other party and they went down the path of least resistance - it was easier to pull my app then to argue about it.

It's about communication. They are marketing themselves as being developer friendly etc, but don't actually look after the developers or even communicate with them.

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

I found this article [theonion.com] hilarious over a decade ago. Now it's kind of sad how Apple is treating innovative third party developers on the iDevices. Think outside the box, but not too far outside the box!

Make something innovative enough, Apple will co-opt it (cut-paste, tethering) and forget what they said previously about it and then delete your app from the store.

You mind telling me what exactly Apple has forgotten that they said? It will make it easier for people who don't pay that much attention to the iPhone and I am not exactly sure what to google to check and get irate about. Apple is a corporation, and with all corporations their PR departments love to forget things.

On a side note, are cut-paste and tethering really the best examples for innovative? You have to be able to come up with better examples of innovative than that. Copying features from other cel

The problem with using Apple's private APIs is that they tend to be unstable, and there are no guarantees that they won't change. Apple would very much rather that half the apps in their store didn't break because of an OS update that changes an undocumented API. And they've always been good about making private APIs public once they stabilize, so it's not as big a deal as this guy makes it sound.

Microsoft has the same problem. If you read The Old New Thing [msdn.com], you'll get a lot of stories over time about things that people start doing in Windows/DOS that weren't documented, that were private APIs, etc. But they had to keep them working because otherwise some really important program would break. Microsoft generally seems to try to keep that stuff working.

Apple is exercising control that Microsoft didn't have over Windows. Since Apple controls distribution, they can prevent people from doing these things, and save themselves hassle later.

Just because someone discovers that a specific microwave can also open their garage door doesn't mean that all new versions of that microwave should have to do that forever.

Apple (and Microsoft) never said "If you do this, it will work." Usually they say "DON'T do stuff unless we say it's OK, 'cause it will break."

Let's not be indiscriminate haters. I disagree about a lot of things Apple does, but the one about only official APIs being allowed does not bother me:

1- private APIs should not be needed. Is there any example of an "allowed" feature that can only be integrated in one's apps by using "unofficial" APIs ?2- indeed, "unofficial" APIs are subject to change at any time.I understand Apple insisting people avoid them, to avoid an MS-like compatibility mess over time, and to protect their customers. I'd be pissed i

The issue there was that Microsoft app writers (like Microsoft Office) were able to use private APIs and nobody else was. This meant that no other competing software could be as efficient as Microsoft's. That was a clear case of using a monopoly in one area (the OS) to stifle competition in another (the apps).

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones, and given the vigorous competition I doubt they'll get one. More importantly, as far as I can tell they aren't competing in apps. They aren't tryin

The functions were exported only by ordinal. There was no documentation, there was no LIB file to link against, the function wasn't named; you had to reverse-engineer the LIB file and link with it. Surely that must've been a clue that what you were doing was the slightest bit dodgy. Office probably found those undocumented functions the same way you did. In the Windows division, we treat Microsoft applications the same as any other company's applications. In fact, earlier versions of the programs now known collectively as Office were such problems that -- I hope the Office folks' feelings aren't hurt by this -- we made up insulting names for them just to keep our sanity. The only one that comes to mind right now is "PowerPig". (I must point out that in the intervening years, the Office folks have done a fabulous job of getting their act together.)

One main difference that people complained about was that MS may have been using those undocumented APIs for their own products like Office but would not release them to 3rd parties. Could Apple be doing the same thing? Yes, but could it is also likely that those undocumented APIs are unstable.

Didn't Micro$oft have API's that they used and didn't want anyone else to use? Didn't they get lambasted for that?

Oh yeah. I worked at Microsoft in the early 90s, and I even worked on one of the flagship applications (Microsoft Word for Windows). I never saw any "secret backdoor" APIs, and I firmly believe that those rumors were wildly overblown.

But Apple is actually doing it. They have undocumented APIs that they won't let anyone else use. Even on the Mac they have them, and they have been known to bre

On the iPad, only Apple software can multitask (this article [bnet.com] has a list: email client, SMS text client, and other apps). On any of their platforms, only Apple software may use the APIs that let you customize the way the UI widgets display. Only Apple software can use the full functionality of the accelerometer [daringfireball.net]. Here is a blog post [vlad1.com] discussing some undocumented OS X features that made Safari much faster than Firefox 3. And here [samsoff.es] is a blog post discussing how several apps were rejected for using undocumented functionality. And here [onlamp.com] is a whole article discussing undocumented Apple APIs, with examples of cool stuff that only Apple's own software is allowed to do. And here [mozillazine.org] is an article discussing cool things that Safari can do, that Firefox isn't allowed to do. And here [theregister.co.uk] is a column that claims that Apple inserts undocumented APIs and uses them in its own code for years, without ever documenting them (but presumably without breaking them because it would break Apple's own code). Even the APIs for the WiFi are undocumented [bnet.com].

I understand the argument that Apple doesn't want to commit to supporting these APIs forever, like Microsoft has had to do with even obscure APIs in Windows. If you use these undocumented APIs to do cool things, and Apple revises the OS, your app may break. And Apple doesn't want the customer to think it's Apple's fault that your app broke.

But I also understand the argument that some of these APIs allow for really cool stuff, which is currently reserved only for Apple. People don't like this.

As for me, give me Linux anyway. No such thing as an "undocumented" API, and there is no entity that has an unfair advantage over everyone else, and I can install any software I want.

Could we PLEASE try to go even a single day without some apple-based story?

Would you prefer Microsoft-based story?

There will always be a flamebaity topic for articles on Slashdot, if only to drive visitors to the site. Like it or not, but most are here for the comments, not the stories. It just so happens that, these days, Apple generates most controversy, and its user demographic is somewhat specific in that any Apple-related story is a virtually guaranteed 500+ comment flamewar.

Canada attempting to pass a bill to put filesharing along the same lines as in the USA?

All this complaining is from a developer's point of view. Users aren't really complaining about app rejection.

And if users really are complaining about app rejection (or a lack of apps for sale) and continue to buy iPhones, well, all I can say is - tough for them. There *ARE* other options out there. And good ones, too.

One that I find moderately frustrating as a developer; the Netflix app. Fire it up and within the first one or two screens you see a pile of UI issues that would get any mere mortal rejected. I understand that the lax approval for Netflix is all about the benjamins, but it is still a little irritating to the free market economist in me. Perfect competition is tarnished when some are a little more equal than others.

If your app does anything that might make it bigger than The Phone, then you screwed up. Apple wants their customers to always have in mind that they're using an iPhone; not your apps on an iPhone. Same reason Valentino Rossi won't get to race on a Ducati.

Now I don't need to spend ten minutes trying to think of a clever way to word what you just explained.

Not that I technically needed to say anything. But this iPhone thing is like an obsessive itch; It bugs me because it's a major piece of social engineering in progress and it's being run by a control freak dick whose dream of reality just pisses me off. The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !

The fact that Apple calls its lead tech PR staff, "Evangelists" is creepy on so many levels. . !

A quick search on linkedin.com shows me people working for Rovi, Sybase, OgilvyInteractive, Gryphon, Elgato, Adobe, Addictive Mobility, Microsoft, Prezi, Nokia, AOL, Mozilla, IBM, HP, and as you point out, Apple, with that word in their job titles. Perhaps you just don't get out much?

Maybe they couldn't. But its even more strange because spotify is in direct competition to itunes. You can buy songs in DRM free mp3 or just have the regular subscription and listen to whatever you want (even offline on the phone) without having to buy individual songs:)

Look and feel is why we buy Apple. We expect to do certain things in certain ways. There are some things that will always be wanted. It is like cup holders. Just because some consumers buy cars based on cup holders does not mean that we should all have to drive car with 23 cup holders.

It is a flawed analogy. No-one is asking for that. What people want is the ability to add extra cupholders to their car in case they need them (and apparently many people do!). But Apple only lets you install anything into your machine in its own service centers, and they only offer a limited range of options.

Also, "iTunes sync over WiFi" = "cupholder", seriously?

This has been discussed ad infintum. I think battery life should take precedence over developers wanting to take the easy way out. I pay for code to be good.

The Flash aspect has been discussed ad infinitum. However, there isn't any good reason why a user cannot run an application which is an interprete

I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use unsupported APIs, but when the program breaks, we can't blame Apple.

Because when Joe User updates their phone, and then their favorite fart app won't work (or more likely, some app they've come to depend on), then they're going to blame Apple, not the developer, even though it is entirely the developer's fault. Not allowing private APIs avoids this problem altogether.

The app reviewers are overloaded and the app review process gets gummed up, and so sometimes mistakes are made and things are not enforced consistently. So, you can have an app that gets through the process just fine for a while, and then gets rejected. Sometimes, it should have been rejected to begin with, but wasn't, and that makes people think that what they're doing is okay, and they got an explicit "wink" and approval.

The (specific, not only) problem is that inconsistent enforcement makes it seem more like there are inconsistent rules than is actually the case.

I certainly totally hate it when some useful app vanishes or new rules pop up out of nothing, but on the other hand I can somehow understand that Apple has to make the rules as it goes along. I mean, if they'd put up clear rules and would stick to these, developers would instantly start to find loopholes and to work around them, naturally. And for Apple the iPhone/iPad platform is what they bet their future on. And this platform is still at a very early stage. They do not want to be the dog with which the tail waggles.

Apple (and the Mac and OS X) has more than once suffered from others having too much control over things. Like Adobe with taking ages to port their apps to Intel Macs because they did not use XCode in the first place. Imagine Apple allowing Flash and any kind of programming language and compilers and middleware and then, 4 or 6 years on, they try to go to a totally different hardware platform (which *will* happen sooner or later, be assured). Suddenly they'd have a large amount of apps they couldn't offer any migration tools for then and be at the whim of some third party (or worse, hundreds of them). Look at Microsoft -- Windows and all its apps are married to Intel and the flood of ARM platforms for tablets is totally out of bounds for MS here. There is absolutely no way to port Windows and all applications to another platform. Trapped.

For Google, Android itself and its apps is still a minor thing. Google does not sell systems. As long as they get your data and your eyes, they can allow Android apps to go whereever they go. They don't actually care.

Really, I'm somewhat happy that there's more than one way. All of this is a large experiment and attacking the problems from more than one angle is good. Freedom is not when everyone does the same.

They are a moving (some might say evolving) target and are most definitely an unknown quantity. Some might say that their "keep'm guessing" style is to their benefit and keeps fans champing at the bit, but for people who are interested in operating a business on their platform, they are anything but stable, reliable or predictable. If there was ever any wonder why Apple hasn't taken over, this paints the most clear and current picture as to why. People bought into iPod and iPhone but it won't be long before Apple pushes enough developers away that those same developers start making really great things for other platforms. Once that happens, all the slick commercials and designs won't keep new customers coming.

Apple is like a controlling, abusive spouse. You either live with them or you divorce them. In time, though, people will start pitying you and questioning your judgement as to why you stay with them.

I think Apple feels that it is their job to guarantee a consistent user experience on their product. It's good business, because as long as users feel safe downloading the apps, they will keep buying them and keep buying iPhones. Sure, it sucks for the few who would be willing to wade through dozens of bad apps to find one good one, but for everyone else it works great. Developers need to learn that it's not all about them, Apple is genuinely trying to keep its users happy.

With just innovation and marketing chutzpah, Apple has created its own kingdom, not unlike Disneyland, where they get to make the rules. That is one of the big rewards of success in business. They have the right to do what they want with the product they sell, including confusing business practices that competitors can use to beat them. As I recall, many were complaining about Microsoft Windows Mobile until Apple came along and helped destroy Microsoft's dominant share in the mobile market. As for the Ap

Well,I have no doubt that there are issues with the way Apple handles this. However I consider this article as bad journalism. About much stuff I have a clue, and the article makes no attempt to give any explanations on how or what is going on and what is so bad about it.

1. we all agree that (crashing) software like that has nothing to do on my mobile device, I assume?2. I agree with Apple. Why should they allow to have several Mail, SMS and what ever programs on the device that ruin the platform look and feel?3. Well, neither the article, not the linked article make clear what this is about. So I would call this bad journalism. Again: what exactly is the Wi-Fi synch thing wee are talking about here? You want to tell me if I want to synch my iPhone with my Mac it wont work over Wi-Fi? Are you sure? And Apps that make this possible get rejected? Are you really sure? If that is the case, we have a point here, but if that is truly the case what is so hard in making this explicit for noobs like me?4. Execute interpreted code. Your comments are wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with "interpreted" or "not interpreted". Apple considers the iPhone an End-User-Device. You can not program on it, and you should not. That is their stand of view. It has nothing to do with interpreted. Imagine a C64 Emulator that has access to the Mac OS X API and is able to "format" the "HD" of the iPhone. Nightmare!5. Use too much bandwidth. The whole explanation makes no sense at all. First of all internet radio streams only us 2 or 3 times the bandwidth a phone call does. Secondly, a provider like AT&T perfectly knows which connections over his network do what. So instead of dropping a phone call because of network saturation the provider easily can drop a true bandwidth hogger. Blocking an App because it might use bandwidth makes no sense... that sounds like bullshit to me.6. No idea about this. All I can find about this is pretty weird. I had expected that the author of this article had worked on that so we as his readers get an ida what is really going on. However: The App Store is no democracy, which might be why Apple doesn't feel inclined to support free speech. First off all: Free speech or not free speech is something different. Supposed there is a ruler and some citizen says: "that ruler sucks." In a society honouring free speech that citizen can say this unharmed. In a society not honouring free speech the ruler might call for his head. Why do you want to imply that an App that does not get published, for what reason ever, is somehow violating "free speech principles"? Claims like that are a slap into the face of people all over the world that fight for free speech in their countries. You dare to compare a not published App in a Store that belongs to Apple, where Apple has all rights to do what they ever want (not rights: privileges even) with "free speech issues"? Hello, get a real live man!7. Use Apple's APIs (without permission). Oh my god. The biggest bullshit in this article. First of all the (without permission) part. It implies that some Programmers have the permission to use those APIs. If you have an App on your iPhone, you expect it to continue to work after a system upgrade, or not? If that App uses a "secret API" and that API got changed during the upgrade, the App will likely crash, or not? Whom do you blame? The stupid moron who used secret/unofficial/undocumented APIs or the System Upgrade? Stuff like this bullshit only one who has no clue about programming can write.8. Use someone else's stuff. No comment about this but I doubt the

I think people with popular "rejected" apps should put them (maybe they already are?) on Cydia.
My iPhone has been much more useful (and has a prettier interface) since I started getting my apps from there.

Apple is trying to create a walled garden and are desperate to own the content because they know that pretty soon everyone is going to catch up with OS X in terms of usability and then they will just be another also choice. I give it another 5 maybe 10 years at the outside until most OSes are pretty much the same in terms of look and feel and usability, baring anything stupid in terms of software patents.

So Apple knows that since its days are numbered they need to own or control the content. Which is why the do everything they do. They don't care about the OS any more, they care about owning and controlling the content now.

As for the walled garden, we all know how well that worked out for AOL and other similar companies. The walled garden approach almost never works because there ends up always being something outside of the walled garden that people want. Walled gardens will never work in the long term.

I think Apple is just scared to death of the future repeating itself and Apple being a nothing on it last legs in 5+ years, like it was 5-10 years ago. So they are willing to do anything to try and make that not happen, including doing stupid things that make it happen faster.

If it is all about the OS then Linux is going to eat Apple's lunch given enough time, and every time. There is very little that OS X has currently that isn't available in Linux. Plus Linux being open source and free means more and more companies who don't want to pay an OS tax are using it. Linux is showing up everywhere on every kind of device you can think of, and neither Apple or Microsoft can hire enough programmers to combat that level adoption or features being added by so many companies and developers. Is Linux perfect? No, but it gets better all the time, and what is clear is that Linux is good enough for a lot of things currently. Perhaps Linux isn't prefect for everything, at least not yet, but that will change in time.

Steve Jobs knows he won't be at the head of Apple forever and probably won't be around after another 10 years, so he has to do whatever he thinks he can to make Apple be able to survive when he is gone so they don't have a repeat of what he sees as the past failures while he was gone. In the end the more he or anyone else tries to put a tight grip on things to control them, the more they lose control of the very thing they want to control.

Microsoft learned long ago, you want your platform to succeed then you need to win the minds of developers. It seems Apple never really learned this, or at least not well. The more Apple pisses off developers the faster they will become an also or a has-been.

Here's the deal. You get access to the iPod and iPhone user base... maybe... for as long as it pleases Apple for you to have that. You take the calculated risk that Apple will accept your app, and continue accepting that app long enough for you to recoup your investment. There are no guarantees that it will please Apple to continuing doing so, any more than there are guarantees that users will buy your app.

I don't understand why people agonize over this like its some kind of betrayal, or like Apple owes them something. As far as Apple is concerned they own not only the platform, but the customers for that platform and every aspect of the user experience. What part of that hasn't been made abundantly clear yet? Oh, there are certain well known things you can do to avoid getting your app banned, but Apple could decide tomorrow to change the rules. They could even ban your app because they decide it's not consistent with the image they want to project.

As long as there are plenty of app developers who willing to develop on those terms (basically nothing is guaranteed), and Apple has never pretended otherwise, why should Apple do anything for you? It'd be different if they'd promised you anything like control over your own destiny, or openness, or transparency, or even a fair shake. But they haven't. They promised you a crapshoot, and that's what you get. It's their rules, and those rules are "what we say goes, and we don't owe you any explanation." The only people who might in some conceivable scenario have any cause for complaint are the stockholders, but those circumstances haven't arisen yet.

So, iPhone developers, if you don't like Apple's terms, eat it, or move on. Apple never forced you to develop for the platform, and they aren't forcing you to stay.

Return7 seems reasonably upset about this. After all, every other Internet radio site remains in the App Store, and, again, three previous versions of CastCatcher were approved. It claims there is nothing in this new version that would require more bandwidth than any of the other streaming radio services.

It's just Apple's app review as usual. At this point, with all the evidence we have, I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's based mainly on wave function collapse.

You know, the fact that there are other options is not a valid reason to simply shut up and accept Apple's capriciousness. Merely taking other options is worthless as a force for change unless you also make it known why you took the alternative.

I can understand both sides to this. On the one hand, Apple is trying to regulate its 'image' and reputation when it allows apps to be sold on their store. On the other hand, you have developers who, by all accounts, followed the vague rules and got their hard work rejected.

You put it nicely when you said "No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone" and given the tiny margins people make on apps, I'm surprised anyone bothers.

On the one hand, Apple is trying to regulate its 'image' and reputation when it allows apps to be sold on their store.

And their image has come down to a fundamentally broken OS and related technologies which claim "revolutionary" new features which are really things that people said that iPhone OS needed from day one.

Even the non-geeks are starting to realize it, when they can get the full web experience from Android and not from Apple, cheaper, more available devices from Android, they are switching to Android.

Apple has had several chances to have redeemed itself and each time has thrown away their chances. From not allowing multiple carriers in the US, not allowing various apps, refusing to allow Flash, being so slow to implement things that every other smartphone OS has like copy and paste along with multitasking, etc.

Really, how many times have you thought "I'd really like to get this smartphone platform, but there are a few apps in here that I don't agree with and it drags down the entire platform" . My guess is never.

True, but it's not what Apple is doing. Apple is1- forcing devs to learn THEIR dev tools, so that they get invested in Apple's ecosystem2- enforcing control of what is sold, and above all who's selling it. Like for the "risque" but not porn" apps, it seems there's significantly less risk of being banned when you're big/official... My take is, they don't care for the little guys, only big names get attention.

The "cross-platform dev tools lead to bad apps" line bunk: a majority of all available iPhone Apps co

Tiny margins? They make 70%, and don't have to worry about hosting or credit card processing fees. Those are better terms than most of the other mobile app stores. Definitely much better than what you'd get from the carriers themselves.

It is not universally accepted that sports scores are the property of the sport any more than I can charge people for looking at a tree that grows on my front lawn. Or charge them for taking pictures of that tree and selling those pictures. Google makes money by providing a map that shows my address. Do they owe me something or do they need my permission to do so?

ESPN has to get rights to show highlights from games, yes, but you can't copyright facts. If I use an MLB logo, or a team logo, or footage from the game, I have to pay or get permission. But I don't need permission to write, on my blog, that the Flyers beat the Black Hawks 3 to 2 in game three of the Stanley Cup finals. I don't need permission to say that a certain ballplayer is hitting.283 or that a diffe

No, its the 2000s and one of the largest smartphone OSs is iPhone (50 million units sold). Lets not forget their near perfect monopoly on music players, which are little more than smartphones sans phone and are binary compatible with ipod/ipad.

Also, in the 1990s no one made you buy Microsoft. You could always have bought a Mac or run a maturing Linux, like today. Harmful monopolies are funny things. In retrospect they are easy to spot, but when you in the midst of one its easy to justify them.

>They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

I dont think anyone is suggesting that, but pointing out Apple's rotten policies is a social good, at least in my book. It keeps the consumers informed and the bad publicity will hurt them enough in the long run. We're pretty much witnessing Steve Jobs circa 1980s all over again. He's going to fight for closed and expensive while his competitors will fight for open and cheap(er). Closed and expensive has early advantages but not much staying power.

"Near perfect monopoly on music players"???? WTF? Between my friends and I, we use ten different portable devices to play music (not counting CD players, just digital files). NOT ONE OF THEM WAS MADE BY APPLE. And we don't feel the lack AT ALL.

You just want to play music, there's no need to suck Apple's dick. There are plenty of alternatives. GOOD ONES.

"Their totally dominant position in the online music business" is not "a near perfect monopoly on music players". They are totally different things: one is the sale of content through a particular type of channel, the other is the sale of devices you hold in your hand and plug earphones into.

No one is making anyone buy an iPhone. No one is making anyone develop for an iPhone.

This isn't the 90's and Apple isn't MS. They don't have to open up their hardware or software to anyone else, and no court is going to make them.

You may be wrong there. Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

it's not like the itunes store is an entity in the void. music labels asked it to be the way it is, with all the limitations and device restrictions and stuff. not that Apple want it open, but let's not forget all the sides of the equation.the app store itself is not leveraging anything, being available on windows. and you can put your own song on itunes, so even that part of the store is 'leveraging free'.

you can argue that the iphone is leveraging the app store, but then again debian is leveraging it's re

While I still disagree with the monopoly theories, the biggest leverage you're missing is leveraging iTunes and the iPod dominance to gain smartphone market dominance. Playing your iTunes purchased music is (typically) more effort on non-apple smartphones and may even be impossible on some. Personally I don't think anything is to the point of screaming at the Feds to get involved (iPod and iPhone market share are each significant but not a monopoly), but it is worthy of the raised eyebrows it's getting.

"Yet they didn't ask Amazon and Play.com to have their stores that way when they opened their DRM free, device neutral stores long before Apple even considered removing DRM?"amazon came way after and got a better agreement. play.com started the music business in 2008, before that was selling drm laden content (dvd)

and that is ignoring, of curse, that itunes is drm free too.

"This makes no sense, software from the repositories don't have artificial restrictions that prevent them being used elsewhere, the very

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

You mean besides abusive contractual obligations to third parties, like Pay for a Windows license even if you're shipping Linux on a computer, or else we'll take away all your licenses?

Yeah, that's nothing like an absent set of rules for the biggest smartphone OS and it's locked in store. There's nothing abusive when Apple chooses to reject apps that do what Apple does, or wants to do in the future. How about rejecting an app that was previously approved based on an update? Don't update your app, Apple might revoke the entire thing!

You may be wrong there. Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.

Of course, MS had a 90+% market share on the desktop OS market, what's the iPhone's market share? Even if we're looking at smartphones I have yet to see any stats that even put it above 50%...

As for the music player market, they don't hold a majority on that either, if you narrow down the criteria enough I suppose you could give them a majority market share in part of that market but it's not like MS and operating systems where it was basically "almost completely owns the market except for the server market

Yes, but the reason that caused trouble for MS was because they were using their near-complete monopoly in one market to kill off competitors in another market by bundling their product for that market with their "monopoly product".

A suitable car analogy might be if Ford manufactured 95% of all trucks but didn't sell them with trailers, then one day they decided to enter the trailer market by buying licensing "trailer technology" from some other company and bundling a trailer with every truck, that would pr

Once a product has a large enough market share, monopoly regulations come into play, whether there are competitors or not. Especially if you use your market share in one market to gain share in a different market. Which is precisely why Microsoft had to change some things - even though there were dozens of other operating systems and office products.
And the share of the smartphone market that Apple holds might just be big enough, especially when seen in the context of their market share of the music player market.

The link between iTunes, iPod and iPhone shouldn't be seen as fundamentally different from the link between MS Windows, MS Internet Explorer and MS Office.

This is what has been floating in my head, but I've been unable to put into words. Excellent comment!

1- Does that make them right ?2- Does that invalidate attempts at trying to try and understand their logic (if any) and not be banned from their store ?3- Does that make efforts to publicize their behaviour superfluous ?

From our standpoint, they're far too propriatary, far too closed, and far to like Microsoft of 10-15 years ago. (and yes, I know we have another 5 million arguements of why Apple sucks beyond that)

From the general public's standpoint, they make shiny esteticly-pleasing gadgets that are relatively high-quality, durable, and have high resale values. They are easy to use, and most of the public don't care if someone is tightly controlling their us

Because there's still stores other than Costco to get stuff at legitimately. If you own an iPod/iPhone, and you don't want to Jailbreak it, you can ONLY get things through the app store. Either Apple needs to open up the marketplace, or they need to open up a legitimate alternate channel for app purchase. If I buy it, it's my phone. Why does Apple get any kind of say at all as to what I put on it?

No, that's a serious question. It's not a specialized device like a console. It's capable of running lots of dif

Why shouldn't they have a say, or 100% control, for that matter? It's their product to sell to you; by buying it, you accept their terms. Don't like the terms, don't buy it--get an android phone instead. The iPhone's capabilities are beside the point.

Put another way, you can run whatever you want on your iPhone if you jailbreak it, or install Linux on it, or whatever, or even if you figure out how to hack it so that you can install your own

I am free to patronize another merchant other than Costco if I so choose.

Apple specifically conspires to remove this option. As much as I personallylike Costco, I think it would suck egregiously if it were my ONLY option.Fortunately, Costco doesn't seem interested in being this sort of dick.

OTOH, Apple does. Apple wants to set itself up as Big Brother. This is whytheir arbitrary policies are a problem. Developers put a lot of time andeffor